Peer Review Policy

Global Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies and Technological Innovations (GJMSTI)

The Global Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies and Technological Innovations (GJMSTI) upholds a rigorous and transparent peer review process as a cornerstone of its commitment to academic excellence and research integrity. Our peer review policy ensures that all submitted manuscripts are evaluated objectively, ethically, and without bias.

  1. Type of Peer Review

GJMSTI operates a double-blind peer review process, wherein:

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.

This approach guarantees impartial evaluation and minimizes potential conflicts of interest.

  1. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are carefully selected by the editorial board based on:

  • Subject-matter expertise,
  • Proven research experience and academic qualifications,
  • Strong publication record in relevant fields.

Each manuscript is typically reviewed by two to three independent experts.

  1. Review Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated on the following grounds:

  • Originality – Must present novel findings or significant advancements.
  • Scientific Rigor – Methodology must be sound, transparent, and reproducible.
  • Clarity and Organization – Manuscript must be clearly written and logically structured.
  • Relevance – Must align with the journal’s scope and contribute meaningfully to the field.
  • Ethical Standards – Must adhere to ethical guidelines for research involving human or animal subjects and comply with publication ethics.
  1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide constructive, detailed, and timely feedback,
  • Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript content,
  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest,
  • Refrain from using content for personal or professional advantage.
  1. Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer evaluations, the editorial team may issue the following decisions:

  • Accept – Suitable for publication with minimal or no revision.
  • Minor Revision – Minor edits required before final acceptance.
  • Major Revision – Substantial changes needed prior to reconsideration.
  • Reject – Not suitable for publication due to quality or scope issues.

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with associate editors and reviewers, makes the final decision.

  1. Revisions and Resubmissions

If revision is requested, authors must:

  • Respond to each reviewer comment thoroughly,
  • Highlight all changes in the revised manuscript,
  • Provide a detailed, point-by-point response to the reviewers.

Major revisions may be subjected to a second round of peer review.

  1. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe a manuscript was unfairly reviewed may file a formal, evidence-based appeal to the editorial office. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editorial committee.

  1. Ethics and Misconduct

GJMSTI strictly follows the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any suspicion of:

  • Plagiarism,
  • Data fabrication or falsification,
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest,
  • Unethical research practices

will be thoroughly investigated and may lead to rejection, retraction, or official reporting.

Transparency, fairness, and academic integrity are central to our review process. GJMSTI is committed to continuously improving its editorial standards to ensure the publication of high-quality, ethically sound research.